St. Patrick's Tokens...

Daltonista

...but not Mark Newby's New Jersey colonial coppers from 1682. Dated 1806, these are Irish in origin, categorized as "non-local" by Davis and Withers,
meaning no specific indication of where or by whom they were issued appears on the token itself.

I'm stating this thread as promised to our new member tokentinker (aka Clark), who mentioned in his introduction that he's working on some diagnostics
research with these very tokens.

So, now that I'm bank from the bank where these are usually kept, my three examples are now photographed and posted below.

The one at the upper left didffers from the other two in that the word APOSTLE is spelled out, whereas it's abbreviated as APOS on the others.

The APOSTLE piece is Davis 66/Withers 1015, while the others are Davis 67/Withers 2016. Note the identical cuds below the date on the APOS examples.

In truth, I know nothing about these tokens that doesn't appear in Davis and Withers, so anything Clark and any other forum members might be able
to share from other sources about their provenance will be greatly appreciated.

Consider this our warm-up to St. Patrick's Day!

Best ~
Tom


Oops... edited to add images, belatedly.

farthing

Just a question - is one of your Withers numbers a typo? I assume that they should be 1015/1016 or 2015/2016 but I do not have their book.

Daltonista

Ah, yes, a mint error, like a blundered date.

It should be 2015 and 2016.

Good eye, farthing!

TokenTinker

Daltonista,

Could the St PATRICK APOSTLE 432 that you identify as a Davis 66 be a cast counterfeit? It seems to possess evidence of casting in the rough and pitted fields and the poor detail to figures, legends and especially the date. It's difficult to gauge color of a specimen over the internet but it does not seem to be copper at all.

Thank you so much for posting these. You're definitely keeping me on topic!

TokenTinker

Does the Davis 66 have the typical attributes associates with the edges of St Patrick Tokens of that time: girdled middle with diagonal reeding? Since the reeding is inset it would be a telltale sign of a "proper" strike. Though they did forget the sleeve at times in the ad hoc minting, a sleeveless strike would be unmistakably deformed and spread. Likewise, if it's cast it would be very doubtful that the edge could be replicated. A simple recessed beveling or line girdling could speak more to mold seams than a sleeved strike.

Daltonista

Hi again, Clark. Sorry about that color issue. My difficulty was with the other two tokens in yesterday's group shot.
I had to brighten the image so much in editing that this token was disproportionately affected, since it started out
so much lighter. Sorry for any confusion.

So here's today's solo shot...color more reality-based:




In hand, it looks more like a victim of corrosion than like a cast copy, which would argue against brass, no?
Nonetheless, its weight is under Withers' spec by .85g. Not sure if that much could have been lost to corrosion.

And the edge, while centre-grained as required, is iffy on account of crudeness, but then a lot of the tokens of
this era were crudely minted to begin with, or minted under crude enough conditions, so that the question is
fairly begged as to why anyone would ever have wanted to counterfeit such a piece in the first place?

Up next week: a true copy, he says paradoxically, although it may be an electroplated...my old bogus Franklin Press Conder.

Best ~
Tom

TokenTinker

Ah - my hopes were up for a counterfeit! With Penny tokens the profit would have been in the quantity of short-weights successfully passed. That they'd so readily do it really puts past-poverty and two centuries of inflation in perspective.

lordmarcovan

Neat. I had never seen those, though I was lucky enough to cherrypick one of the Mark Newby New Jersey St. Patricks out of a bulk lot once!

Even before I scrolled down to see the harp and "1806" dates, or read your text, I knew they were circa 1805-1806 because of their resemblance to the regal issue 1/2d of that period. Funny how much the portrait of "St. Patrick" also resembles that of George III on other coins. Look how much the profile of the face is the same... it's like they just re-engraved ol' Georgie to give 'im long hair!

Daltonista

Interestingly, Rob, Withers addresses that very point in a footnote (p. 224), citing Davis, who in turn is quoting Samuel, as follows:

"Davis suggests that due to the difficulty in recognising some of the busts on Irish tokens, one should take advice of the writer of the Bazaar articles (Samuel), who suggests the bust belongs to the appropriate legend: "Whose image and Superscription hath it."

Thus, applying this rule to a particular St. Patrick APOS 432 penny token (D47/W1960), Withers concludes: "...whilst the superscription would have us believe that this is St Patrick, the face is clearly that of St Wellington!"

So, you're doubtless 100% right that the diesinkers took what was close at hand, a George III effigy, and turned him into St. Patrick...the most expedient way to get some cheap tokens circulating quickly out on the street.

For anyone wondering about the significance of the number 432 on these tokens, that's the year (A.D., of course) in which Patrick was consecrated as Bishop and sent back to Ireland, where he worked for 25 years to convert the islands from "paganism." MUCH more historical detail on that topic is found here.


Best ~
Tom

laurentyvan

Hi Daltonista, I have recently become enamored of tokens and conders and jetons.

I like your 1806-is this a reasonably easy example to find or is it the 5 year wait?

Daltonista

Maybe a six-month wait, Laurent. I see them more frequently on the Irish eBay, but then they attract more bidders there too.

Mine turn up from time to time in searches for 19th-century exonumia, which you can further limit with subtractions, of course.

There may be dealers in the UK who stock this sort of material, but I can't make any referrals as I don't keep up with them.

Anyone else out there?

Keep us posted!

Best ~
Tom